The Path Of The New Warrior

By Matthew Pike

            Within political science, the advent of civilization is defined by the interacting of two distinct political entities. The first evidence of this takes the shape of a weapons cache dated to 7000 B.C.E. This cache, as well as archeological findings of fortifications around the city of Jericho, marks the first occurrences of warfare between humans. With warfare came the inevitable questioning of war and morality, and these questions continue to this day. Many different views and analyses have been put forth to try to address these questions over the years. With modern technological advancements, the face of war has changed considerably, both with the shift to mechanized war and with the occurrence of globalization resulting in a focus on economic warfare. Indeed, Sun Tzu's classic, The Art of War, is required reading for many corporations top executives. With this shift in the nature of war, a shift in the answers to the philosophical questions is also needed. Many of the past just war theories have aspects which are still widely applicable, but none of them offer a complete view. The martial art of Aikido and its corresponding philosophy was developed around 1960 C.E. by a man named Morihei Ueshiba, and is an attempt to draw from the greatest past achievements of mankind to create a path for the modern warrior to follow. With the modern changes in war, the role of the warrior has also changed, and Aikido puts forth a doctrine aimed at solving the "riddle of history", and moving humanity into a better and brighter era. In order to gain an understanding of this philosophy and how it addresses the philosophical questions which have followed mankind for thousands of years, a comparison between Aikido and some of the traditional Just War Theories is warranted.

            The word "Aikido" translates as the "way of harmony", with its philosophy dedicated to peaceful harmonizing with all that is. It is a purely defensive martial art with no punches or kicks, with its techniques designed to neutralize a threat with minimal harm to the attacker. In this manner, its use of physical force is very different from violence, as none of its techniques are designed for the purpose of inflicting suffering on another. The moves consist mainly of wristlocks,  throws, and the use of pressure points. The wristlocks and pressure point moves allow the Aikidoist to catch and hold an attacker in a position where they cannot harm another person, until the attacker ceases to struggle. Once this point is reached, the attacker is released with no damage done to them. The Aikidoist uses the attackers aggression and negative energy, but redirects them to a peaceful resolution. Aikido is commonly described as "the art of getting out of the way", which is supported by its throw techniques. If an attacker charges at the Aikidoist, she moves out of the way, and continues doing so until the attacker realizes they are not getting anywhere, and ceases their attempted violence. Thus, the Aikidoist never directly causes any damage to the aggressor, while also preventing the attacker from damaging anyone else.

            Aikido is occasionally criticized by students of other martial arts because of its lack of offensive moves. Many people say it is too passive, and therefore too weak to have any real value in a crisis situation. This is also a common criticism of pacifism, and other notions driven solely by a desire for peace. Despite this criticism, Aikido is one of the most effective martial arts in the world.

Aikido's philosophy is equally effective, since it encompasses the strengths of many positions while addressing many of their weaknesses. For example,  one of the strongest arguments for pacifism is the belief that if all humans were to follow its tenants, there would be no war. As Milne says, "If Hitler were Milne, there would be no war". The same can also be said for Gandhi's movement, because if there were a universal employment of its techniques, violence would never result from any situation. The philosophy of Aikido has the same strength since it shares the central belief that violence is not a correct answer to a problem. Aikido dictates the avoidance of violence, recommending a peaceful redirection of any negative energy towards an outcome that is positive for all involved parties. If everyone follows this mandate with adequate dedication, situations that would otherwise end in violence and conflict would instead be resolved by peaceful means.

These peaceful means rest upon the realization that everyone has common goals, which Hobbes characterizes as the endeavoring towards self-preservation and from wards harm. Hobbes, however, recognizes these common goals as resulting in the natural condition, where everyone finds themselves in a state of conflict with each other. His solution to this is the instituting of the sovereign to create a threat of higher power that will serve to provide safety to the individuals in the political entity. Hobbes views the individual as the basic operating unit, where any and all social structures are simply a creation and unification of many smaller units, which shape themselves into a somewhat cohesive structure with its own set of properties. According to Hobbes, subjects form into a society by willingly transferring their rights and power into a sovereign, "in so far as others do" (Law of Nature II}in the form of a social contract, and are therefore bound to keep this covenant. He proposes that humans should, "be willing to lay down your natural right provided and in so far as others do as well". A violation constitutes a threat to the other members of the polity, or international realm, and must therefore be dealt with in a manner in accordance with natural law, "using all the advantages of war". This manner of reacting equates to war and violence, which Aikido finds unacceptable.

By comparison, Aikido views these common goals as being a uniting factor for humanity, such that if the false notions and tendencies towards violence were to fall away, an actor would feel nothing but compassion and love towards others. In this manner, acting in a peaceful way is an automatic result. The difference between Aikido's interpretation of these common goals and that which Hobbes puts forth stems from a difference in their analysis of human nature. Hobbes believes that human nature ingrains individuals with a tendency towards war, which is a problem to be solved by an artificial construct. This is intimately related with the notion that all individuals are purely self-interested.  Aikido, however, views human nature in a rather more optimistic light, seeing human nature as a predisposition towards love and peace, which all too often gets clouded and confused by other distracting details.

One important thing to note is that Aikido is not a philosophy of political structuring. It does not dictate a sovereign or other governmental structure, but instead focuses upon the role of the individual within the entire universe. This represents a notion that the characteristics of a society are representative of what is found in its individual members. Along these lines, if one wishes to enact changes in how nations interact, changes must be made in the mindsets of its citizens. Several of the views on international interaction assign the nations similar characteristics to individuals, such as the notions of territory rights, and the view that a state can have harm done to it by another actor. If these comparisons can be thought of as accurate, then a protocol for the interaction of individuals could also be applied to intergovernmental relations and international affairs. If all the nations of the world adopted a cooperative mindset, instead of a competitive dedication masked by a smile, war would be avoided in all but the most extreme cases.

The occurrence of such "extreme cases" has been one of the major problems standing in the way of the various war theories. The most common criticism of pacifism is that it is so passive. If pacifism is followed to the letter, an actor will take no action in even the most action demanding circumstances. This can breed problems of its own. For example, many political science textbooks explain the occurrence of World War II as resulting from the lack of the use of power politics and the threat of force. WWI left most of Europe with a bitter taste in its mouth, and so its political leaders adopted a pacifist attitude in an attempt to avoid a repeat occurrence. Many theorists say that if these leaders had been willing to act when the trouble first began, the whole war could have been avoided. There is also the question of moral standards, since an avoidance of one evil that results in a greater evil can hardly be said to be just. A total failure by other nations to react to the Holocaust might have avoided some combat, but would have resulted in the extermination of an entire culture. In this manner, it becomes clear that cases can arise where war-like actions are required.

For this reason, many of the just war theories have focused on how best to distinguish between avoidable and required conflicts. One example of this focus can be found in Walzer's adaptation of the Doctrine of Double Effect. Within a state of conflict, many difficult decisions arise which may have very severe negative results associated with them. Many times, a perfect solution is not available and an actor must try to pick the lesser of two evils. The DDE attempts to provide a decision-making apparatus for moral dilemmas. The doctrine recognizes that every action has both positive and negative results. It tries to provide a means by which differing results and intentions can be cross-compared to allow for the making, and justification, of a decision that may result in undesirable consequences.

These decision making means seem to rest upon the belief that somewhere there is a solid line that will eventually be crossed where violence becomes acceptable. Many people feel that if a situation is bad enough, any means of response are justifiable. Of course, the meaning behind "justifiable" is interesting within western culture. Even if a nation engages in actions that result in the death of millions of individuals, if the circumstances are grave enough, the act is "just" and the actor is absolved of all blame. This focuses more on the concept of "justice of war", where if the cause and end result are good enough, and sufficiently outweigh the bad, any injustice in war can be disregarded. This is one of the primary differences between western conceptions and that of Aikido. Aikido does not believe that there is a "point break" where suddenly anything goes, but instead sees the world as a continuous curve. Aikido focuses more upon the justice in war, with its students learning techniques for neutralizing a threat without harming the aggressor beyond what is absolutely necessary. This is similar to the soldier/man distinction, except that Aikido dictates viewing everyone in every situation as the man and not the soldier. Aikido does not subscribe to the "demonizing" of the opponent so typical in western thought, but instead advocates seeing through any attack to the human being beneath it, and harmonizing with them to achieve a positive situation where everyone walks away unharmed.

Aikido does realize that a situation could arise where a solution could necessitate a physical response. Aikido differs from the DDE, however, agreeing more closely with the absolutist conception proposed by Nagel. The absolutist position places its focus more on the action itself, not just on what happens as a result of it. This is based on the belief that there are some actions that are simply unjustifiable and wrong. Even if there is a beneficial end result, there are some things which cannot be outweighed. If many people's lives will be saved by one act that will inflict great harm on one individual, the DDE will say that the ends justify the means, if certain conditions are met. This does not change the fact that the act of causing great harm to an individual who is endowed with rights and commands the respect of his being morally considerable as a person and equal entity is wrong. The absolutist points out that there are aspects of humanity inherent in a person which demand that their right to life be respected in any situation.

Aikido attempts to address the respecting of these fundamental human rights while providing an effective solution to conflict. This method is largely dependant upon the actor being in a proper state of mind. The state of mind recommended in Aikido, and most Eastern thought can be loosely compared to what St. Augustine describes as a passionless calm, devoid of personal desire. Aikido draws much of its theory from Zen Buddhism and thus advocates a perfectly centered calm where the actor never reacts out of anger. St. Augustine explains this state of mind as being one with God and thus doing his work. According to this, a warrior who is acting out of coolness has God on his side and is justified in doing anything. Aikido differs from this, specifying that the state of perfect calm must be filled with compassion and love, and in this sense serves to enact better responses to any conflict. This view could be summarized as a belief that if someone's intentions are good, a path of harmony will become clear.

Aikido does not try to theorize about distinctions that make unacceptable things acceptable, but instead proposes a mindset with which an actor views and interacts with the world. The Aikidoist attempts to blend and harmonize with all of her surroundings to achieve the greatest good. The founder of Aikido spoke at length about striving to reach a higher good. He constructed a view similar to those of Plato and Gandhi, where the elements of the world can be layered in terms of their proximity to the absolute truth. This view holds that there is an absolute and correct existence that all should aspire to, where the purpose of existence is to make progress towards that higher truth. Students of Aikido view life as a classroom where everything that happens is for them to learn from, and conflict is no different. Aikido advocates the embracing of a conflict in a loving way, for the sake of learning from it, and also of teaching the aggressor a better path. Aikido solves the problem of war, not by distinguishing where war is right and where it's wrong, but by changing it. If all the world followed Aikido, war wouldn't be Hell, it would be fun.